$1000 to register an electric vehicle ???

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It's quite the bargain for most EV drivers. If you drive more than something like 5,000 miles, then you're ahead by paying the $100 fee than paying the road taxes (gasoline tax) driving an ICE vehicle.

I had a feeling more reasonable fees would be implemented.

Uh huh, real f’n bargain

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ion-fee-to-248

Everybody was so happy with the unnecessary fee legislators were merely emboldened to jack up the price again to test the waters.

Unless there is real opposition to any fee until there is an actual funding issue due to a large percentage of cars being BEVS these taxes will be set as high as they can get away with to simply deflate EV demand

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Uh huh, real f’n bargain

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ion-fee-to-248

Everybody was so happy with the unnecessary fee legislators were merely emboldened to jack up the price again to test the waters.

Unless there is real opposition to any fee until there is an actual funding issue due to a large percentage of cars being BEVS these taxes will be set as high as they can get away with to simply deflate EV demand

The way road infrastructure is funded comes from fuel taxes and registration. EVs pay zero fuel taxes, so increasing the registration cost is the only in-place method to even that out. As I said, most EV owners are still paying less towards infrastructure than other ICE drivers in IL.

The ICE registration increased too, along with fuel taxes. It seems to me the politicians were trying to solve a real problem (insufficient road funds), and it isn't obvious to me that the intention was to stifle EVs. I'm willing to be wrong about that, but I don't see how harming EV owners would somehow boost a politician's position.

I've been saying for years that infrastructure should be funded by regular tax revenues, and that registration should cost the amount it takes to make a record of the vehicle with the state and not a cent more. The reasoning is that all people benefit from road infrastructure regardless if they drive or not.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The way road infrastructure is funded comes from fuel taxes and registration. EVs pay zero fuel taxes, so increasing the registration cost is the only in-place method to even that out. As I said, most EV owners are still paying less towards infrastructure than other ICE drivers in IL.

More than 85% of Illinois' road funding comes out of the general fund (I looked it up a couple years ago when some idiot yelled at me from a car about "not paying for the roads" while I was on a bike).

[redpoint5]

I'm not saying IL is managing funds properly, or that $1000 registration fees for an EV is reasonable. All I'm saying is that EVs tend to pay less than other vehicles for infrastructure. Why IL has an infrastructure funding crisis is beyond me. Oregon registration is something like $90 for 2 years. Gasoline tax in IL was 19 cents per gallon compared to Oregon's 34 cents. It's now being raised to 38 cents.

Perhaps they should have raised it a long time ago?

[Xist]

Vman, how dare you not be in his way in a car?!

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Vman455

More than 85% of Illinois' road funding comes out of the general fund (I looked it up a couple years ago when some idiot yelled at me from a car about "not paying for the roads" while I was on a bike).

I doubt that is just a clear cut number without a bunch of other factors. Like does the registration taxes go into the general fund first? Do the sales taxes on cars and the income taxes on salespeople and dealerships go into the general fund first? What about all the other taxes from commerce based solely on transportation? I would think that also must only be considering the states portion of the funding ignoring the federal portion as I bet the federal portion is more than the supposed leftover 15% not coming from the general fund. Also around here, when they say funding for the roads they also mean bike paths, lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, ect. So the gas tax portion shouldn't be covering 100% even in a perfect system.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I doubt that is just a clear cut number without a bunch of other factors. Like does the registration taxes go into the general fund first? Do the sales taxes on cars and the income taxes on salespeople and dealerships go into the general fund first? What about all the other taxes from commerce based solely on transportation? I would think that also must only be considering the states portion of the funding ignoring the federal portion as I bet the federal portion is more than the supposed leftover 15% not coming from the general fund. Also around here, when they say funding for the roads they also mean bike paths, lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, ect. So the gas tax portion shouldn't be covering 100% even in a perfect system.

Comparing EVs and ICEs, though--EVs are (except Tesla) sold through dealerships, so there's no difference in the income tax of the salespeople, etc. And for Teslas, well--you still have to pay sales tax on a Tesla, and since they tend to be more expensive than the average car, there's more revenue coming in per car sold for those EVs than ICEs. If you're going to get that particular, though, I think you just open a huge can of worms. What about taxes on steel manufacturers? Do those count as "transportation" revenue if some of their product ends up being turned into cars? If I buy food at a gas station, does that count as "transportation" revenue? For that matter, my bikes each cost several thousand dollars, and I bought all of them since moving to Illinois--shouldn't the sales tax I paid on them be counted as "transportation" revenue? If that's the case, I should be entitled to a lot bigger share of the road than I currently use.

Also, we have to specify which roads we're talking about here. Roads within a municipality that aren't interstates, US routes, or county highways are maintained with local funds, and those aren't remotely covered by local transportation taxes (Champaign, for example, takes $0.04 per gallon, and those greedy *******s in Urbana $0.05 per gallon).

The fairest thing to do, I think, is get rid of the state gas tax altogether and have a flat registration fee based on vehicle weight. No worries about government surveillance counting how far you drive, heavier EVs are penalized more but so are brodozers, and there's no penalty or incentive for EVs versus ICEs as far as road usage taxes are concerned. This will never happen, but I can dream.

Of course, starting Jan. 1 we'll have taxed, legal weed here. That should help put a dent in our financial hole.

[redpoint5]

Registration tax by weight makes some sense too, and I could be for that. Gasoline taxes should remain as a disincentive towards use though, to be determined be each municipality and based on federal targeted consumption goals.

[Xringer]

"$11,500 in incentives"?? Two questions:
1. What is the source of the $11,500 ?
2. Who ended up with that money ?

[Snax]

I just find it both ironic and idiotic that at the same time some legislators in Oregon have been pushing to raise registration fees for EVs, the state DEQ is handing out $2500 rebates to those who purchase an EV in Oregon from a dealer - new or USED!

The disconnect between how we are taxed and revenues is ridiculously complex and nonsensical. All we can do is shake our heads and the trees of legislators that don't have a clue.